Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just to join the debate again about civil liberties, although off topic. Although a Labour supporter, their policies that contravene our fundamental (and in many cases, historically British) rights has been one of the great disappointments of the last 13 years.
However, the poster who wanted to know what the Tories did to civil liberties, I think you are very much mistaken if you feel they have clean hands in this area. In fact, many of the areas where Labour is being criticised (rightly) is just an extension of Conservative policies.
After 1979, the Conservatives pursued a strong anti-union narrative and methodically reduced the right to protest and the right to strike. They empowered the judiciary to effectively make most protests and strike action illegal.
This was combined by their extension of police powers, encouraging stop-and-search and combative instead of community policing. Many cases of police brutality and crowd mismanagement arguably resulted from these measures, as well as widespread institutional racism.
The criminal justice system also became more and more punitive, pressure was applied to make sentences longer and to criminalise an increasing amount of 'deviant' behaviour. Not only did this do nothing to cure long-term causes of crime but it arguably reduced our right to an independent judiciary - free from political interference.
In others areas, like gay rights, the Tories really were the nasty party, and it took a Labour government in '97 to repeal Section 28 - an amendment to education policy that prevented the teaching of homosexuality in schools (as an acceptable orientation).
The bottom line is that neither party is innocent, but that in 1979 the Conservatives started a power-grabbing consensus of central government which has continued to this day. The other thing to remember is that whilst the Tories had to deal with the IRA, who knows what legislature they would have put on the books if faced with 9/11 and 7/7 (which is held up as the justification for many of Labour's laws).
My simple question is: Why does Britain have 2 Left of Center political parties? Why didn't the Liberals disappear completely?
I am well aware of the history of Britain's political parties and I will go over it, just so readers will understand that I don't need a basic tutorial on the parties.
The parties began with the Whigs and Tories in the 1700s, and developed into the Liberals and Conservatives in the 1800s which was the chief political rivalry until the 1920s. In the 1929 election, Labour, under Ramsey MacDonald, finally broke through in substantial numbers and broke the back of the Liberal Party. Under first past the post, Labour became the primary party of the Left, however, the Liberals did not disappear. (If someone with good historical knowledge would like to go into the Liberal collapse of the 1920s and the rise of Labour, I would not mind, but that is not my primary question.)
The result of this vote split on the left was that between the 1920s to the 1990s, the UK was governed by the Conservatives about 75% of the time. The Liberals couldn't get passed 20% of the vote and sometimes were held to as low as 3%.
In the 1980s a faction of Labour felt the party had gone too far Left, formed the Social Democrats as a separate party, went into electoral alliance with the Liberals as the SDLP, and then finally merged with the Liberals as the Liberal Democrats.
Still, the Lib Dems and Labour are both Left of Center parties. What is the fundamental separation between them? Some time ago, I asked this question and one of the responses was that Labour was not a left of center party. This answer was probably given by someone of the far Left who couldn't distinguish between his own position on the political spectrum and objective reality. If you want to argue that the Lib Dems have moved to the left of Labour I'm open to the idea, but Labour is still to the left of center. I am not looking for polemical or partisan responses. I am just trying to figure out why there are 2 broad based left of center political parties in the UK which has a first past the post political system that should have left only 2 serious parties contending for power. (For purposes of this discussion I'm ignoring SNP, Plaid Cymru and the parties and MPs of NI as none of these will ever rule in Westminster).
Is it class? Was Labour a left of center party of the working class while the Liberals were and are a left of center party of the professional class? Did Labour focus primarily on working class, union, pay, and government service, bread and butter issues, while the Liberals paid more attention to environmental issues and pacifistic defense policies that the working class didn't support and viewed as elitist? And if so, what were the Liberals focusing on in the 1930s through 70s, before these issue became significant?
Is it ethnicity? Was Labour in the early years unable to make ground in Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland, and thereby gave the Liberals a base of support to hang on during the lean years?
Is it personalities? Were the two parties divided simply because of a history of personal animosity between their respective leaderships?
Is it ideology? Was Labour significantly to the left of the Liberals in the 1930s to 1980s, so that fundamentally, the Liberals of this period were in fact not a Left of Center party but a mostly Centrist party?
Therefore, if the Post-Thatcher, Blairite Labour party is no longer avowedly Socialist, and the Lib Dems seem to have slid leftward, on Europe, Environment, and Nuclear Disarmament, what separates these two parties? Why do they exist as separate entities?
Thoughtful, non-partisan, non-polemical, objective answers would be appreciated. While if I were a UK citizen, I know exactly how I would vote, I'm not looking for a partisan political discussion during this election season, nor am I asking how you would vote.
A final summation of my questions:
Why does the UK have 2 left of center parties?
Why did the Liberals collapse in the 1920s?
Why didn't the Liberals disappear completely either because of electoral irrelevancy during the 30s-70s or through absorption into Labour?
In the current period do you consider the Lib Dems to be to the left of Labour? And if so, why did they move to the left of Labour and on what issues?
I just thought i'd point out that both the Liberals and Labour are right of centre. None of the main parties are left wing.
Still, the Lib Dems and Labour are both Left of Center parties. What is the fundamental separation between them? Some time ago, I asked this question and one of the responses was that Labour was not a left of center party. This answer was probably given by someone of the far Left who couldn't distinguish between his own position on the political spectrum and objective reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by archineer
I just thought i'd point out that both the Liberals and Labour are right of centre. None of the main parties are left wing.
While I personally doubt that yours is a reality-based opinion, I'm glad that you posted it. I believe it validates my previous comment, and for that I am appreciative.
While I personally doubt that yours is a reality-based opinion, I'm glad that you posted it. I believe it validates my previous comment, and for that I am appreciative.
You'll find both Labour and the Liberals are on the right.
This website and it's determinations are valid only if the center point of the graph is a location based on something that approximates objective reality. I read through the description and noted several bits of phraseology that indicate the authors have a bias. I would broadly accept the graph for setting the distances and directions the various parties have from each other, but not its location of where the center point is.
That being said, I love visual representations such as these as they really are quite interesting to me.
This website and it's determinations are valid only if the center point of the graph is a location based on something that approximates objective reality. I read through the description and noted several bits of phraseology that indicate the authors have a bias. I would broadly accept the graph for setting the distances and directions the various parties have from each other, but not its location of where the center point is.
That being said, I love visual representations such as these as they really are quite interesting to me.
Don't like it so it must be biased? If a party proposes a state/public sector of less than 50% of gdp, then it is on the right. The extreme left would be 100% state ownership, the extreme right 100% private ownership. The centre is an economy that is 50% public / 50% private.
I just thought i'd point out that both the Liberals and Labour are right of centre. None of the main parties are left wing.
I disagree. Terms such as 'left' and 'right' are largely relative terms. As a rule the Left does tend to support certain policies and the Right tends to support certain policies, however the whole political spectrum changes from decade-to-decade.
The political spectrum is constantly moving and is not fixed based on ideological positions circa 1945 (or any other random date).
Don't like it so it must be biased? If a party proposes a state/public sector of less than 50% of gdp, then it is on the right. The extreme left would be 100% state ownership, the extreme right 100% private ownership. The centre is an economy that is 50% public / 50% private.
The mistake you are doing here is equating left-wing/progressive politics with a large public sector/expenditure.
This is a quite a major mistake, IMHO.
High public spending does not always equal left-wing outcomes. For instance, I think one thing we might all agree on is that a committment to some degree of economically redistrubutive policies and reduction of poverty is a left-wing goal.
Now, I don't have exact figures on this, but at present public expenditure here in Australia is just over 30% of GDP, whereas I believe that in the UK it is over 40% of GDP. However, Australia has sigificantly lower levels of (relative) poverty and in particular child poverty than the UK.
So, is Australia with lower levels of poverty or the UK with higher levels of public expenditure more left-wing?
The following is by a poster called "deedle" and was posted on another forum I visit regularly. I thought it interesting enough to reproduce here because of its contention that there really is very little to choose between the parties:
Having read countless posts about politics on ** over the years, it is clear that most people will cast their votes on May 6th with reluctance. The most commonly-held opinions invariably relate to dislike – even hatred – of one party rather than genuine support for another. Yet, there is discernible cynicism concerning whether anything will change significantly no matter the result and many are simply apathetic – the numbers failing to vote have risen from fewer than 20% in the immediate post-war period to in excess of 40% in 2001.
Like all others since the early 50s, the 2010 General Election is being fought primarily on the battleground of the economy. We are asked to believe that Brown, Cameron or Clegg will lead us into a bright new future where all are prosperous. Such a scenario is fanciful; most experts believe that irrespective of who wins, the United Kingdom faces at least a decade of lower living standards as a direct result of excessive debt (personal, organisational and national). Furthermore, brushed over in the pre-election debates, the next government will face huge problems related to burgeoning demands imposed by public sector pensions and the thorny dilemma of energy policy. Indeed, it has already been suggested that victory in this election will represent a poisoned chalice.
Those who pay attention to facts rather than rhetoric will understand that we are not being presented with a genuine choice. Growth in GDP under New Labour (at 2% p.a.) was slightly lower than that achieved by the Thatcher governments (2.5% p.a.) and hardly impressive in international terms. Inequality of income has increased marginally under Labour (inequality of wealth considerably more so) and unemployment now sits at a level not far below the peaks experienced during the 80s. While public sector spending as a proportion of GDP increased under New Labour (albeit to far less a degree than critics imply), this led to decreased productivity and the nation is rated only 34th (behind Namibia) in terms of infrastructure, widely regarded as a crucial prerequisite for growth. Interestingly, despite the much-vaunted measures introduced by Margaret Thatcher, overall productivity relative to that in the USA is still only 83% although several European countries have succeeded in raising theirs to over 100%. In essence, with the exception of the minimum wage, the macro-economic strategy pursued by Blair and Brown was identical to that inherited from the Major regime. The removal of exchange controls in 1979 and the Big Bang of 1986 had already ensured that the financial sector centred on London assumed a disproportionate position in and influence on the British economy; foreign investors subsequently flocked to speculate on the inflated housing market driving prices ever upwards and the Labour administration was reluctant to intervene. However, despite Labour’s trenchant criticism of the Conservatives over the erosion of our manufacturing base, in the past decade this sector has declined at nearly 3 times the rate experienced under Thatcher.
Of course, the economy is only part of the picture. In social terms, the United Kingdom has undergone a huge transformation within the past half-century. A mere 30% agree with the statement ‘most people can be trusted’, a huge decrease from the figure of 60% in the 1950s; the comparative figures for Norway (74%) and Sweden (68%) are also in stark contrast. Fully one-fifth of the British population do not speak to a friend or a neighbour for one month at a time. We tend to have fewer stable marriages, more children born out of wedlock, more single-parent families and more teenage pregnancies than other European nations. We also work longer hours and watch more TV. Membership of clubs, youth organisations, trade unions and political parties has plummeted; likewise, attendance at church services. While offences recorded by the police increased by a factor of 9 from 1957 to 1997, crimes of violence against the person rose from 11,000 to a quarter of a million in the same period. It is estimated that over 50% of crime is now a result of drug abuse. The overcrowding of jails is so excessive that criminals are given reduced sentences. There is evidently a deep social crisis which appears to be tacitly accepted by our elected representatives.
Why is Britain in such a mess? I believe we are paying the price for unquestioning devotion to neoliberal dogma – of both the left and the right. Although the two philosophies are ostensibly at complete odds with each other, there has been a surprising level of cohabitation, as the French put it. The right has certainly held sway in the economic sphere since Margaret Thatcher came to power and her brand of unrestrained capitalism which afforded primacy to the financial sector is rarely questioned at a senior political level. Less obviously, and exploiting its influence in education, the law, the media and the public sector, the left has triumphed in setting the agenda in social and cultural terms. By ‘left’, I do not mean the Labour Party of Attlee, Bevin and Gaitskell which was essentially concerned with jobs, health, housing and reducing inequality; rather, the ‘cultural Marxists’ whose priorities revolve around posturing over ‘rights’ and ‘attitudes’, with anyone who might disagree dismissed as ‘bigoted’. While the general public believes immigration to be the second most important issue at this election, the left has succeeded in effectively rendering the subject taboo. Despite evidence indicating that ‘multiculturalism’ has been an abject failure, especially when large numbers of people from radically different cultural backgrounds – some deeply hostile to Britain – arrive in a short interval, there has been relatively little open debate. Indeed, it appears that the right and left see mutual advantages: capitalists succeed in driving down wages and increasing house prices and rents and the Labour Party welcomes a steady supply of new voters and the potential for the creation of jobs such as ‘social diversity officers’.
There is no genuine ‘right’ and ‘left’ in British politics. Instead, we have a political mainstream which has embraced the orthodoxies threatening this nation’s future and which is in agreement on all the major issues. A political mainstream that encourages greed and self-indulgent behaviour while ignoring the legacy it will leave for future generations. A political mainstream which has ensured most citizens function as debt slaves while privileged elites in both the private and public sectors pull their strings. A political mainstream that relies upon a sympathetic media to de-intellectualise and infantilise the masses and create the impression that anyone who dares question its intellectual legitimacy or authority has a major problem.
Three decades ago, Margaret Thatcher broke the so-called ‘post-war consensus’, whereby, despite a great deal of shadow-boxing, the Conservative and Labour parties did not diverge significantly in policy if not outlook. I suggest it is now time the neoliberal consensus is smashed; it has palpably led us to disaster. My great fear is that the British people have become so apathetic, so cynical and so demoralised that they do not understand the reality that confronts them. The mainstream has failed – we need a new political outlook.
Some claim that Labour gave up being left of centre when they abandoned clause 4, which pledged to redistribute wealth, and dropped unilateral disarmament. The difference between the parties is actually quite small. Thatcher's Conservatives expanded the role of the state (particularly welfare) while in power, and despite claims of cuts, increased state spending. The Lib Dems have usually come up with radical sounding policies to try and differentiate themselves, but faced with the realities of office would probably not be much different. In a country where most laws are passed by unelected officials in Europe, or devolved to regions, with no capacity to increase budgets, the main difference between parties these days is tone; it's almost a charade to pretend what happens in Westminster makes any difference. The truth is they are all committed to a welfarism that most Americans would consider very left of centre.
*
Ha ha "increased welfare spending" of course they did, they threw 3, ooo,ooo out of work. It is just another example of the Tories putting a sheen on their record which is lousy.
Camerons "Big Society" means this, they will take money out of public spending in the hope that charitable groups and churches will step in to provide the services we all need and pay taxes for. It is what Americans call "trickle down prosperity"
It is what decimated the NHS in the 80s and 90s [people were being treated on trollies in the corridors] cut the police to the bone [crime doubled] and reduced education to third world status [nearly]
I predict that this govt will be more hated than Thatcher's if it lasts long enough. Cameron is a bamboozler. The Lib Dems have proved what everybody knows about them, they will say anything to anybody to get power.
The answer to the OP is that "it's all monies my dear" the Tories are backed by business and Labour by the unions and the Libs by almost no-one.
The media [Richard Murdock] put the Tories in, I listened to the TV pundits and KNEW they were being paid to savage Labour and soft peddle the Tories.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
